Goli Yamini: Hello and welcome everyone. We are going to get started in a few minutes.
Goli Yamini: We are just waiting while everybody is joining. This is the solicitational Webinar for the smartphones program,
Goli Yamini: and we are just going to get started in a few minutes. Um,
Goli Yamini: please use the Q. And A. Feature for any questions. We're going to put that in the chat for instruction.
Goli Yamini: It's
Goli Yamini: you keep.
Sylvia Spengler: Do you have any favored questions you want to answer in person?
Sylvia Spengler: Yeah, I will.
Sylvia Spengler: So you get the choice of doing um.
Sylvia Spengler: I'm. Either answering with text or you kick it as answer in person or whatever the thing is.
Goli Yamini: Yeah, we're gonna after the Webinar after we do the presentation. We were going to do them live
Sylvia Spengler: so. Ah, but um, some of our Pd. That are here. We've asked everybody to also answer questions. Um with this text while they're well, you know we're doing the webinar. So if there's any one we can flag it to also say it out loud. All right, be great so you can, you can,
Sylvia Spengler: you can. You can put in an answer, but it still shows it as answer out loud.
Goli Yamini: That sounds perfect.
Goli Yamini: That's gonna be great.
Goli Yamini: All right. Welcome again to everybody who is just joining us. We are going to start in a couple of minutes
Goli Yamini: by two or five. We are just giving everyone a chance to join.
Goli Yamini: Um. We are going to have a presentation on the new solicitation, and then we're going to have A. Q and a session. Please use the Q. And A. Feature. This is a repeat of September twenty fifth webinar. So there isn't any new material, but it's mostly for ah people who weren't able to um attend the first one, or you'd like to you know, join us again for um a refresh of everything that we already said on this on the September twenty fifth.
Goli Yamini: Um. We get the question a lot about whether this Webinar is going to be recorded, and that if the answer is, yes, it's going to be recorded. The slides, the with caption and the
Goli Yamini: the recorded video are going to be post on the events page for today. And then with a link in our program page. So the recording from today and the slides and material is going to be available.
Okay, we're going to start in like about a minute,
Goli Yamini: All right, Um,
Goli Yamini: And the number seems to be stabilizing um or not
Goli Yamini: for the participants that I
Goli Yamini: joining
Goli Yamini: um again. So let me just start from the top. Ah, since it's two of five. Let's get the Webinar started before we get started. I'm just gonna say this Webinar is going to be recorded, and it's going to be posted on our program page. Ah, the events page will have the slides and all material. Um! You can find the link on the bottom of our program page, which we will show which will share
Goli Yamini: throughout the um presentation today.
Goli Yamini: So ah! Today we're here to talk about the smart health and biomedical research in the era of artificial intelligence and advanced data, science or or Ah, ch for short new solicitation. I am
Goli Yamini: here with my ah colleagues from and Nsf. And and Nih, my partner for all this. Ah Ch activities, Tom Martin, Um, David Zahabi and Dana will fuse um and our other Pds here at that. So I wanted to go around and do introductions. Tom. Do you want to
Goli Yamini: go first?
Tom Martin: Thanks. Golly, Hi, everybody. I'm. Tom Martin. I'm: a program director in in Information Intelligence Systems with Billy and I'm. A rotator from Virginia deck.
Goli Yamini: Thank you. Um, David.
David Zahavi: Sure. Hi, everyone. So my name is David Zahavi. I'm A Aaa science and technology policy fellow at the National Cancer Institute at the National Institute of Health, and I work with Dana Wolf Hughes, who is one of the Co. Leads on the smart health program.
Goli Yamini: Thank you, Dan. How would you like to go?
Dana Wolff-Hughes: Hi, everybody! I don't know if You'
Dana Wolff-Hughes: like, David, said i'm a program officer at the National Cancer Institute, and along with Goalie and Tom and David. And then Yomi Wang, who couldn't join us today. We co-lead the smart health initiative.
Goli Yamini: Thank you, Um, Sylvia, would you like to introduce yourself,
Sylvia Spengler: Oops I'm. Sylvia Spindler, i'm a program officer at the National Science Foundation in Information our intelligence systems? And I'm. One of the and Nsf. Supporting program officers, and I will, if the questions get hysterical, be answering questions.
Goli Yamini: Thank you. Thank you. Um. Georgia and and Shiovanni Would you guys like to go next?
Georgia-Ann Klutke: Yes, welcome, everybody. I'm Georgia and Kluke. I am a program officer in the engineering directorate. So, as you all know, this is a cross-disciplinary solicitation.
Georgia-Ann Klutke: Um, So my my home program is operations engineering, although i'm doing a detail this, it currently over in in size and so welcome. Thank you.
Goli Yamini: Thank you. Yeah, We're We're so excited to have Georgiana on the size that Shivani, Would you like to go?
Shivani Sharma: Sure, my name is Giovanni Sherman and I'm, the new program director in the Engineering Directorate or Cmi. Ah, and I am taking over the biomechanics and mechan biology program. So i'm looking forward to working with you all.
Shivani Sharma: Thank you.
Goli Yamini: Thank you so much, and um welcome to all of our colleagues, and welcome to all the attendees. Um, again. My name is uh boy Yami, and i'm in a uh i'm a Pd. In the size I
Goli Yamini: here's the rest of our team from the and Nsf. Side. Ah, Tom Martin! We already met Stephen Rayler, Julia Gel, James Schowler, Georgia, and here he met Ah, Tatiana, Burleski, Vishal Sharma, Sylvia Spangler who is also here with us today, Betty Toller and Christopher Yang.
Goli Yamini: I want to hand these off to David to tell us a little bit about the and I inside.
David Zahavi: Thank you, Goalie. So currently there are twenty nine Institute centers and offices that participate in smart health across Nih, and so we cover a wide range of interests in health conditions and biomedical public health and behavioral science areas.
David Zahavi: As you can see from the side, we have a large number of individuals and Nih involved in smart health, and between the Nih and Nsf. There are over one hundred people involved in this rather large initiative.
Goli Yamini: Thanks, Um.
Goli Yamini: So you might ask what um you know what What was the motivation for bringing, and Nsf and and Nih together for the small terms program One hundred and fifty.
Goli Yamini: Ah, we've seen computing, engineering and math and social behavioral sciences really ah like transforming the world with their new findings. And we haven't seen a lot of those necessarily applied to health.
Goli Yamini: Um. So this program was started to kind of bring those advancements into the health. Ah, arena um! The proposals here would have to address Ah research gaps in science and engineering. Ah, with a key, health or biomedical problem. There's a use case. Ah re Ah re inspired research. Are we going to talk a lot more about that.
Goli Yamini: But the teams that we're looking at must include appropriate research and basically research expertise for the requirements of the proposal. And
Goli Yamini: obviously it's they have to compliment rather than duplicates in the core work that is being done in other programs. The
Goli Yamini: um what I want to We're going to talk more about some of this detail later on. But what I want to make sure is in everybody's mind, and we're very well aware of is that November ninth, at five Pm. Your local time is a due date for the proposals. These are integrated projects with the total cost budget of one point two million that includes direct and indirect Um, and the teams are obviously going to be interdisciplinary.
Goli Yamini: But the advancement is going to be in fundamental science. Ah! With at least two ands of disciplines Again, as I said to say, use the entire basic research program. Um, David, Did you want to comment at all about the the cost before I have things off the top.
David Zahavi: Yeah, sure. Um, Again Thanksgiving. So what's important to reiterate for individuals applying to smart health that maybe are more familiar with the and nih application is that, as Goalie mentioned, the total cost is one point two million over four years, and that This includes both direct and indirect costs, which is a little bit different. This is important, not only due to the different structure for your application, but also because if you eventually are selected for funding through Nih, you will have to transform your budget back to the Nih format. So just please
David Zahavi: keep that in mind, but for now i'll hand it over to Tom.
Tom Martin: It's a
Tom Martin: a next slide going, please.
Tom Martin: So smart health is a case of use-inspired basic research.
Tom Martin: So back in the Ninety S. Ah. Donaldson's came up with a model called Pasture's Quarter. We put the request for basic understanding on one axis, and the considerations of use applied research on another axis. While the Nsf. Supports basic research like fundamental physics, the Niels Board quadrant on this figure. What smart health is looking for is is analogous to Louis Pasteur.
Tom Martin: So Louis Escher did fundamental microbiology, but it was aimed at having an impact on his community.
Tom Martin: And so there's also the abide ponder represented here by Steve Jobs. We took fundamental science and create applications out of that science. And while that's important, and it's not what we're looking for in smart health. What we're looking for is fundamental advances in science and engineering. That address a health or biomedical issue, and that we're advances that are transformative high-risk and high reward like pasture.
Tom Martin: One advances in computer science, information, science, engineering, mathematics statistics, behavioral, cognitive science. And we want those to help address pressing questions in the biomedical and public health.
Tom Martin: We want advances to cover a research gap, not just taking existing techniques and applying them to a health issue. So what are the gaps in fundamental science and engineering that have to be addressed before you can make an advance on the key health issue? That's what we're looking for smart health.
Tom Martin: So it's this combination of making an advance in fundamental science and engineering while addressing a key health issue. And
Tom Martin: this combination is going to require that you have appropriate research expertise. As Goalie mentioned, that covers all the major aspects of your project. So one of the common questions we get is, Do you need a clinician on your team?
Tom Martin: The answer to that is, No, you don't have to have a clinician, but when you do do need is somebody with the appropriate research expertise, someone who knows the relevant research literature which could be somebody from biology or public health, for example, or a clinical researcher next slide going, please.
Tom Martin: So the current solicitation has seven themes that we'll discuss over the next few slides. So these themes are detailed in a solicitation. But Don't feel limited to these themes with your proposals,
Tom Martin: with your idea fits into one of these themes or not, we recommend you talk to an in a set program director, and we fully expect that a lot of proposals will cover local themes and and, like I said, maybe go beyond them. So with that i'll hand it over to David.
David Zahavi: Yeah. So as Tom there, these themes are not mutually exclusive, or all encompassing, You know we encourage applicants to come and present their perspective.
David Zahavi: And for the
David Zahavi: that we will discuss Ah, fairness and trustworthiness. The focus here is on real world considerations beyond conventional analytical approaches. So this includes new directions for computational science that are fair and trustworthy for clinicians, patients and participants, and really underpinning that are areas such as addressing algorithmic bias, realizing the benefits of data, fairness,
David Zahavi: new models for causality and new methods to address disparities and improve equity. Next slide, please.
David Zahavi: Another theme is transformative analytics, and this includes several bucketed areas, such as fusion and analysis, of multi-level and multi-scale data especially in scenarios of noisy or limited data new tools and techniques for visualization and modeling of the data
David Zahavi: and behavioral contextual and multi modal data
David Zahavi: it looks like.
Tom Martin: So another theme is multimodal and reconfigurable sensors. And these sensors should not be a single type of sensor, but instead, they should be integrated systems that since different types of signals, not just electrochemical, but other signals, such as biochemical, magnetic, acoustic, and so on. Next slide, please, boldly.
Tom Martin: Um. We're also interested in cyber fiscal systems that are aimed at biomedical areas. So the cyber physical systems are closed loop or human in-loop systems that combine computation, communication and control
Tom Martin: cyber fiscal systems research can cover a wide. Ah, so so Cps research can cover a wide variety of fundamental topics, such as dependability, trustworthiness, high assurance, formal verification, and even unconventional, substrates, for example, with integrated electronic and biological substrates next slide. Please go
Tom Martin: um. The robotics theme um covers intelligence that's embodied in such a way to process information, since plan and move within or substantially alter its working environment. So we're looking for an hour robotics that address a key health issue, such as an enhancing health, improving social connection or reducing disability research issues in human robot interaction are also important.
Tom Martin: Next slide going,
Tom Martin: then back to you, I think.
Goli Yamini: Thank you. Yeah. So um. The topic of biomedical image interpretation. It is really divided into a presentation essentially of how human pattern recognition visual searches,
Goli Yamini: perceptual learning, attention-based things like that can really affect how observers understand images really want to understand the context and the environment, and that is um includes human environment. When you're looking at an image, you're doing image analysis, either collecting or doing a manage analysis when you're looking at that, Those kind of things, both in context and environment, are we seeing,
Goli Yamini: but also ways to exploit These is um um like. Can they help? Ah perceptual decision making? And this could you know, this could be in both unknownd and forty
Goli Yamini: um. The last topic that we, the last theme. Ah! In this solicitation, which is not usually exclusive with any of the other themes, is unpacking. Health, disparities is that ah healthy quality and health equity. Um, where you live, determines your life expectancy, and relates to social determinants of health.
Goli Yamini: Um, what we see here is a map of Ah, New Orleans, and it,
Goli Yamini: you can see marked the life expectancy based on the area that you live in. For example, the suburban area that's affluent. The life expectancy is higher than so the other low-income areas.
Goli Yamini: And for this the goal is for the development and research. The goal is to reduce Ss and mitigate some of these two
Goli Yamini: social determinants and um
Goli Yamini: bias related, or
Goli Yamini: issues related to that that may affect health,
Goli Yamini: sir.
Goli Yamini: Let's move to um sort of going over a little bit of the review process here in, and and kind of um walking, you guys down um what the path looks like. We get a lot of questions about this, so we want to.
Goli Yamini: I personally want everybody to understand that.
Goli Yamini: Um, These are Nsf proposals, and the review process is an Nsf review process, but it is going to be joint. So the but the So the proposals come in to Nsf. They get uh panel, and reviewers are recruited by the Nsf. And the panel is held together by Nsfpds put together by Nsf. Pds. But during the day of the panel we haven't. We have someone from Nsf. And a Science review officer, a Pdf. For ministers and a Science review officer,
Goli Yamini: Nih. And so we do rankings from the Nihs side, and then the Nih Sro also does collect scores for the Nih purposes. Um, David, do you want to kind of
Goli Yamini: add a few things here before we move on to the next step.
David Zahavi: Yeah, sure. Um: yeah. So as Goalie said, your applications will be submitted directly to Nsf. With the deadline. This round of November ninth five Pm. Your local time. They have to be submitted in the Nsf form, and then Nsf. And nih work together on these joint review panels that include an nihssro,
David Zahavi: so your applications will receive both an Nsf. And an Nih score for the Nih side. Once those scores are done, the applications are then also percentiled, but the reviews are written in the Nsf. Format one.
So at this point everything's in the Nsf format except the Nih scores and percentiles.
David Zahavi: And at that time Nih Staff will meet to discuss which applications are of interest, and I institutes and centers. If this were your application, you would receive an email, notifying you, and providing instructions for how to move forward with resubmitting the application to nih one
David Zahavi: that's important to note that this does not mean you're going to be re-reviewed it Just your application will go through what we call a dummy panel in the system. The nih scores from the initial process are then released, and then everything that you would do normally for Nih funding, such as going to council stays the same.
David Zahavi: I'll stress again that your applications will only be reviewed once, where they receive both at and Nsf. And and Ih. Sc. As for a timeline for November submissions, they'll be reviewed. This winner selection would happen in early spring, and then, if you are selected for Nih, you go through
David Zahavi: some time between May and August, depending on the Ic. And this means that, depending on the Ic. You are selected to receive funding from you could receive your award either in the fall or for Nci as an example, it would be December
David Zahavi: for nih applications. We encourage you to remain in contact with the Po. Of your selected Ic. For updates, Tom Goalie. Anything to add,
Goli Yamini: I don't.
Tom Martin: No, I was just gonna say No, David, I think you you covered it very well. Um between the two of you.
Goli Yamini: Thank you. I just wanted to highlight again. Something that that David said. He discussed the timeline of how this you know, it may take up to December to get funding, especially if you get your proposal gets picked by the Nih, But because of the
Goli Yamini: like interagency nature of the program,
Goli Yamini: our our timeline tends to be stretched out a little bit by the time the nih has their picks, and then Nsf. Has their picks, and the timeline may be a little bit stretched. So
Goli Yamini: Yep. I just wanted to note that, and with that let's move forward to the review elements, and i'm going to hand these off.
Tom Martin: Thanks, Billy. Um. So
Tom Martin: remember these are Nsf. Proposals that go to and Nsf. Review panels. And so the standard insect, review criteria of intellectual merit and broader impact supply. The elements will be applied to both criteria, and they should be considered in top down the word. So, as we've said before, smart health proposals have to make a fundamental have to make fundamental contributions in science and engineering
Tom Martin: next slide, please.
Tom Martin: So the broader impacts include benefits to society and advancing desired societal outcomes. This is not an exhaustive list. It's important to keep in mind the broader impact.
Tom Martin: Can't just be the biomedical or health impact. You have to think beyond just just the biomedical or health areas.
Tom Martin: Next slide, Please go.
Tom Martin: So over the next two slides we're going to discuss the smart health. Ah, specific review criteria in terms of the scientific requirements, the collaboration and management plan and the evaluation plan. But I will say on the scientific requirement, like, I just said, you need to think about What are the advances in the foundational science and engineering? How novel and transformative, or are they?
Tom Martin: Is there a good plan for making those advances? Does the proposal include the right team, and do they have good institutional support?
Tom Martin: Next slide, please, bowling. And then I think it's back to you. Actually,
Goli Yamini: yes, thanks. Um. So we mentioned a few times that Um, this is an integrative, this isn't an interdisciplinary program, and we mentioned that we ah! The requirement is that the proposals Ah contribute to at least two fundamental science and engineering areas in
Goli Yamini: Ah Ns.
Goli Yamini: So this is a list of areas, for example, not limited to this list but um of the directorates of size, engineering, math, and statistics, and this spa social behavioral cognitive sciences. So what I wanted to point out here that
Goli Yamini: the two disciplines that are, or the two areas that are being picked for focus can either be with from two different directors or within the same one, so it could have your proposal to have elements of computer science and engineering,
Goli Yamini: or spbe and math, or any other one. Or it can be two different areas of computer science like it could be national language processing and Ai, or it could be like
Goli Yamini: sensors and operation systems, or something like that, or closed loop systems or so with either two different areas within the same discipline or two different disciplines. Any combination is fine. But again, we want to highlight that
Goli Yamini: it has to have these, it has to be advanced in. So in these areas, with the use case being health, So if the main contribution is in health. It's not going to essentially meet the goals of the
Goli Yamini: the proposal, and it may be better that if it's reformatted, and depending on the topic submitted to ni history.
Goli Yamini: But yep, that's all I wanted to say for this one. Um for the collaboration plan. The each proposal must include a collaboration and management plan as a supplementary document.
Goli Yamini: The limit is two pages, so no more than that it is going to include a description of the team and their roles.
Goli Yamini: It is going to have a plan of integration, and basically how the interdisciplinary collaboration the team science is going to be done. And Um, the team members expertise have to match the overall project again. This is where questions of the media clinician. You know somebody from this expertise or that expertise comes into play.
Goli Yamini: You will need a clinician if that if you need that for your research. But the expertise have to be there.
Goli Yamini: Another question that we also get is, does it have to be in sort of a very experienced person? Can it be a new pi? It really just depends on if the expertise match the needs of the proposal. So this is where you need to explain to the panel and to us how
Goli Yamini: everybody's expertise is coming together, and how room is going to work together to make the goals of the proposal achievable.
Goli Yamini: Tom and David, Do you guys want to talk about the data management?
Tom Martin: Sure, thanks, Billy. So. Um. All the proposals have to include a data management plan. It's up to two pages. It's described in the grand proposal that um. But your data management plan has to describe how the proposal will perform to the Nsf policy on dissemination and sharing your research results. There's a couple of links here that provide more details on on the Nsf data management plan,
Tom Martin: and then projects that are selected for and Nih funding will be required to comply with the Nih data and data management and sharing policy. And i'll let David talk about that for a second.
David Zahavi: Yeah. So thanks, Tom. The biggest piece of advice here is to follow everything above for Nsf: First and foremost, since that's where your applications are submitted.
David Zahavi: This is more just of a heads up that if your application were selected to move over to Nih. You must then also comply with the Nih data management and sharing policy, and we will include instructions when you are notified of any selection by Nih. Thankfully, There is mostly overlap between the Nsf. And Nih. As to the requirements of these policies, and only a few things will be unique. Ten I:
Tom Martin: Yeah. And and actually, Goalie, before we go to this like, I just want to emphasize for people because it's kind of it can be a little confusing if you don't understand the process.
Tom Martin: The only projects that are going to have to to do uh this part about the you know age, data management plan are just the the projects that are selected for funding by the Nih uh, you, don't have to take care of this when you submit your proposal, it'll only be the lucky few that get selected for nih funding. So just want to make that as clear as possible,
Tom Martin: and in in terms of evaluation. All the proposals must include an evaluation component. So the evaluation can target in multiple areas. So I can attorney things like the technical functioning, the validity and reliability of the outcomes, the usability, the impact on the biomedical or health outcomes um. But the evaluation should not include randomized clinical trials. This is meant to be early stage
Tom Martin: research. It's not ready for for a broad um clinical trial. So um, I think one of the questions that was asked was that in terms of the technical definition of the Nih, it might be considered a randomized clinical trial. But what we really mean is
Tom Martin: sort of something ready for being deployed. This is really intended to be early stage research.
Tom Martin: Thanks a lot.
Goli Yamini: Um. Thank you so much, Tom, and especially for highlighting that about the data management plan specifics for the Nih. Just a few final comments. We want to
Goli Yamini: emphasize what is and isn't appropriate for the solicitation. As we said, the advancement has to be um in science and engineer and engineering, and with the and a use case, basically scenario, the focus.
Goli Yamini: If the if the focus is only advancing biological or bay medical sciences. Ah! Without any new fundamental science or engineering that's not going to be a good fit. If you propose an application for existing
Goli Yamini: fundamental science, and but it is a new application for for biomedical that is not appropriate like. If you're building a new app or repurposing an outfit. We are not looking it, you know. We're not looking for incremental work or sort of repurposing of stuff, and the focus of it has to fit the mission of the agency. So again, if it is health oriented, it is, you know it should be
Goli Yamini: sent to Nih. That's not going to be a good fit for smart health.
Goli Yamini: Um, we want in order for you to see, sort of like some examples of what is appropriate. We uh recommend you check out the previous awards. The way that you can do that is, just go on our website under a words uh click on search award, and then, uh, when the search page comes up you can type in a ch, and then you'll see um all like the previous awards up, and it will help you hopefully give you an idea of what sorts of projects are a good fit for
smart health sort of like. What is that?
Goli Yamini: Um. Science and engineering and biomedical or health aspects like. What What the balance is that we're looking for?
Goli Yamini: Um, David, do you want to walk us through the Nih side of how we can see the same thing there.
David Zahavi: So yeah, Similarly at Nih, we have reporter. And so, if you navigate to the website, you can use the advanced product search, function and enter the text. Sch: when searching by a project title, and that will pull up a list next slide.
David Zahavi: And so yeah, that'll pull up a list of applications that were funded by Nih through this program. And when you click on these grants you will see that they are written in the Nsf. Style and language, and can get really a sense of proposals that were selected by Nih.
David Zahavi: And again, i'll just reiterate, as we're talking about the criteria. That health is a use case that really takes a backseat to the intellectual merit and broader impacts that will be evaluated by Nsf:
Goli Yamini: Go ahead. Go ahead. Go ahead.
Goli Yamini: No, go ahead. I was just gonna say Tom's gonna take it. Please go ahead.
Tom Martin: Ah, so if you like to get feedback on your proposal, send a one-page summary to to the and Nsf. Ah. Sch correspondence at and Nsf Gov. Address, and and so a summary of your idea that briefly describes the project,
Tom Martin: the intellectual merit, and that means the specific advances you expect to make in fundamental science engineering and the broader impacts which will move to health, outcomes, outreach, and education do not send an nih specific aims page. This is meant to be an Nsf proposal, and
Tom Martin: there's a link at the bottom there that has a more detailed description of the one-page summary.
Tom Martin: David, do you have anything to add to? That
David Zahavi: Yeah, I Can I can jump here in here, just to say for those thinking about reaching out to and Nih. Remember that these proposals are submitted to. Nsf: It's most important that your application meets their format and needs. Therefore you should get their feedback first. If you have questions on the health context, or use cases that you'll have in your proposal. We work very closely with our Nsf colleagues, and they will reach out to us as needed, and set up any future meetings. Please do not reach out to Nihpo's Is your
David Zahavi: most likely just going to be routed right back to Nsf. And this could delay getting your feedback. We encourage you to send your one-page summary to the above address just as soon as possible.
Goli Yamini: Thank you. Um. So here are for um here in the and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and
Goli Yamini: based on your proposal. But again, what we keep reiterating, I mean all of us just said it has to be. Your proposal has to be written in an as a format, and it has to have a transformative science aspect.
Goli Yamini: There really isn't besides sort of looking at the Institute specific interest and sort of trying to
Goli Yamini: incorporated somehow. There really isn't a way for you to target the mih side. Um, Again refer refer to the path G for guidance on how to write it. And if you have any questions, please email us at ah se correspondence at, and nsf dot com
Goli Yamini: if you'd like to join our lists serve, please use these instructions. We I also do on a pitch and ask for your help with the program.
Goli Yamini: If you're interested in serving on review panels, please um email me. Let us know you can email the Our uh Ch. Correspondence aliens here as well, and let us know that you'd like to be considered for being a reviewer for a small part Health smart House, or other uh related programs, and i'll be happy to add you to our
David Zahavi: um Data usually concludes this here as far as how they said Relay, David, do you want to?
David Zahavi: Sure I can. I can close this up? Um, you know, Hopefully, we've made clear through this presentation that for this initiative we are looking for things that will advance, You know, fundamental science, and we really think about it as sort of this hand off between basic and applied science.
David Zahavi: Yeah, that's all. I am.
Goli Yamini: Thank you so much again. Thank you all for joining us today. Thank you for all the attendees and to all the attendees and our colleagues who are panelists. Um, please email your questions at the Ch. Correspondence at Ands. But but before that please submit them to the Q. And A. Feature here, and we'll be happy to answer them. So
Goli Yamini: I want to move forward now with the Q and a future. Um. We have some questions here, and our colleagues have been busy answering some in text already. But let's get started with the Q and A. Portion. Um, Tom, do you want us
Goli Yamini: take a question to answer first, and we'll go from there.
Sylvia Spengler: Ah, actually, I don't want to throw puts on the spot. But the the first question is about how important are preliminary results, and it says Sylvia would like to answer it. So, Sylvia, do you want to take a shot? I don't need to answer it live. But I do think it should be answered. Why,
Sylvia Spengler: okay, That is, that is, uh
Sylvia Spengler: indications and reasons for success and reasons why your hypothesis that the system will work are critical.
Sylvia Spengler: A start. You don't need preliminary results in the classic nih way you
Sylvia Spengler: um. But you do need some indication that the approach is correct.
Tom Martin: Thanks, Sylvia, and I'll add my own speed on that which is, you need evidence that your plan is going to work, and that evidence takes many forms
Tom Martin: and preliminary results are one form of evidence, but they're not the only form of evidence.
Goli Yamini: Dana, Do you want to expand it? Or David? Would you guys like to expand a little bit? There's a question on. So there's a question that says Nsf. Recommendation and an age Quantitative scores are likely to correlate any specific strategy to coordinate it
Goli Yamini: for the submission we don't need to specify which Nh. Agency is relevant, and it will be automatically matched. Correct, which is correct. They don't need to. There's no addressing Nih. But I was wondering if you guys could explain that one.
David Zahavi: Yeah, I mean, I can expand on it a little, so applicants cannot choose whether you're going to get funded through Nsf. Or Nih. You're going to get one of the other or not funded Well, scores microlit. That's not always the case again. You should just make sure that your proposal
David Zahavi: fits the program and really matches the Nsf evaluation criteria. And then from there your submissions will be looked at and using the Nih score. It will be then selected and be matched with ics. You don't need to specify.
Goli Yamini: Thank you. Um. The next question is about the research content and essentially asking If
Goli Yamini: so, basically they're saying it's covered governed by. And so the proposal should have a binomial application. But that's not ready to be implemented, and that's correct. So the research content. Again, as we said, it's the two main two main one
Goli Yamini: focus areas for science and engineering under and Nsf: Ah, with health being a use case, and that does not mean that it has to be at the implementation level, so it could be for discovery or um all like a whole array of things that is not necessarily ready to be ah implemented from people setting.
Goli Yamini: Are you,
Tom or David? Do you guys want to add anything to that sort of clarifying?
Tom Martin: I don't think you need to respond to it.
David Zahavi: Yep, I gripped most
Goli Yamini: it.
Goli Yamini: Any other questions that pops out to anybody to
Goli Yamini: disguise.
Dana Wolff-Hughes: Yeah, go away. I have one for for you all to answer.
Dana Wolff-Hughes: So someone asked about sort of biological sciences being missing from the focus area. So, for example, somebody who is a pi in engineering, collaborating with an individual who is a biochemist or microbiologist. Well, the biochemist microbiologists be an eligible second field, and do eligible areas exclude on the flip side of that biochemistry or microbiology.
Goli Yamini: So the and my my Msf. Colleagues, please. Second, but um is
Goli Yamini: short. Answer is, Yes, um, it is it doesn't include so bio director. It is not a part, so biology is not included as one of the main disciplines. From the Nsf side. The bio and microbial
Goli Yamini: aspect that we see um is usually in health,
Goli Yamini: not necessarily advancing biology, Sylvia, did you want to?
Sylvia Spengler: No, that you got it? It? You got it in one. It's the advances in. But in biology per se or not, there may be specific kinds of chemistry insights that might make sense in a health context, but
Sylvia Spengler: we are not. We do not focus on the biology.
Goli Yamini: Thank you for expanding on that. Yeah, it's not um.
Goli Yamini: It's. It's a it's a good question, because it is the feel they're so related, and it's like a close feel. But it's
Goli Yamini: it cannot be one of the core areas of advancement. It's going to have to be a use case again,
Goli Yamini: maybe I could add to um. Look at the title of the solicitation. It involves artificial intelligence and data science in the title. So that's probably where you want to put the impact. If you're going to go outside of engineering for
Georgia-Ann Klutke: um, for the other. Discipline is something that would involve. Um, you know, new new data, science and and artificial intelligence revolving around a health problem.
Sylvia Spengler: Thank you. I was good. I had a question. But so here you were talking about. Ah, preliminary data. Um, do you mind? There's a related question that says what other forms of evidence can can be used apart from preliminary dairy work.
Sylvia Spengler: There must be theory.
Sylvia Spengler: There can be theory that says it should work,
Sylvia Spengler: and you haven't, and it hasn't been tried. But but you have a mechanism for doing it, and a way forward it can be
Sylvia Spengler: published work. We don't want to see your published work cited it other than as a citation, but lots of times to explain why you think something. Ah, if it's a published work, you need to be clear about that. And if you are talking about things that are already published. It is critical
Sylvia Spengler: that you be clear about what is already published versus what it is you are proposing.
Goli Yamini: Thank you.
Goli Yamini: Okay. Somebody asks how they can join the for reviews. I am putting that in the chat as requested.
Goli Yamini: Um, So you can email me for um. Our alias um
Goli Yamini: to be added to the realist potential of your own
David Zahavi: goalie. And, Tom, I see a question: What is the expected turnaround time to get feedback on the one-page summary, and is there a suggested deadline for the same?
Tom Martin: So I've been trying to turn things around within twenty-four or forty-eight hours, but that's not a guarantee, and particularly as we get closer to the to the submission deadline
Tom Martin: things are ramping up. So I would say, if you if you email me in the last week or or two weeks you you might not get a response given the rate things are coming in now,
Tom Martin: but I will say, please do pay attention to what we said about sending it in the Nsf. One-page summary format i've had quite a few that are a list of specific aims. It's like, and I've just reached the point of saying It's sending it back and saying, rephrase. This is intellectual merit, and the broader impacts. So that'll save you a turnaround time
Sylvia Spengler: and Georgia, and is writing an answer. But i'd like to answer live. The one on is the low level is the low funding level
Sylvia Spengler: common in the program, and the answer is, we get a lot of good proposals that we can't fund even with Nih as a partner.
Sylvia Spengler: Um, but It makes a difference how
Sylvia Spengler: how highly rated it is
Sylvia Spengler: because we try very, very hard to publish, to to fund the highly competitive ones.
Georgia-Ann Klutke: And I would add to that there are multiple panels. We get a lot of proposals.
Georgia-Ann Klutke: Um! And, as Sylvia said, a lot of really good proposals, you can look at the solicitation for roughly the level of funding that we have available. And so, if you do the division, you can see there there are probably way more good proposals than we are able to fund.
Goli Yamini: Um, I think that all the questions are little if you are still coming in that were asked. Um. Some of them were outward, had written answers. I wanted to see if anyone in our group that gave any written answers that they think should be highlighted for everybody.
Sylvia Spengler: I I, Tom. I highlighted the last one.
Sylvia Spengler: Yeah, I just saw that come in. I was about to answer it. I just wanted to make sure it got taken up.
Tom Martin: Yeah. So um
Tom Martin: one way to think about this i'm not saying there is is a single formula for successful smart health proposal. Ah, but you know an archetype of a successful smart health proposal is, Think of the health problem as the application,
Tom Martin: you know. Here's the what it's been described to me as having a funnel, and the wide part of the funnel at the beginning of the proposal is, Here's this health problem. Here's this key health issue that needs to be addressed. But in order to address that, we have to make these these breakthroughs in science or engineering,
Tom Martin: and then most of the proposals about what those breakthroughs are, and then you come back to the health problem in terms of the evaluation and things. So in terms of one of the key criteria questions to distinguish between basic understanding and the application quadrant for smart health. You should think of the health problem as the application.
Tom Martin: And so again. Like Louis pasture, he had a community health issue, a public health issue he was trying to solve, but he had to make advances in microbiology in order to be able to solve that hopefully. That helps
Goli Yamini: Aina. Did you want to answer the patent question?
Dana Wolff-Hughes: Well, actually, I was going to pose it to you all um and moderate, since we have a couple that are open that just came in. So the question is about the technology being patent pending. And does that have an adverse impact on an application being considered. So I don't know Goalie, Tom, or David, if you'd like to take that first.
Tom Martin: Um. So my take on that would be, you know you should think about what are the advances, the fundamental advances that you're going to be making. So you already have a patent. What additional advances are you going to make on top of that?
Tom Martin: So if it's just, I have this this thing that's patented, and I'm going to do something with it. But i'm not going to do anything new. I'm just going to apply it to a health problem, probably not appropriate for actually not appropriate for smart help.
Dana Wolff-Hughes: So we have a couple of questions about the presentation today, including
Dana Wolff-Hughes: sharing of questions and answers, as well as whether that information, including a recording will be email to participants.
Goli Yamini: So
Goli Yamini: um that everything is going to be recorded and posted. Um, I would say, please check out the program page. We try not to call him with his email as much as possible, so we try not to send too many. Follow up You've already gotten a few reminders for this one. But um! We could, But it's going to be all. Everything is going to be linked in our program to access. Um! What was the first? The other question that that you mentioned about?
Goli Yamini: Oh, the Q. And A. So the
Goli Yamini: I don't know if it can be posted as a separate attachment.
Goli Yamini: But we are still recording, as, and all these recordings will be available, the caption for all this will be available. So
Goli Yamini: everything that we see here is going to be available on the events page, with everything else in the Q. And A. Itself as a separate document. I don't think so. But all of what we're talking about is going to be available,
Dana Wolff-Hughes: and then can a single P. I propose and and apply is collaboration A. Must.
David Zahavi: I'll take this from, too, if you don't money going.
Tom Martin: So you know, as Goalie said. And I reiterated, the team has to cover all the major areas of research expertise that's required to tackle the problem.
Tom Martin: I suppose there could be a single P. I. Out there who is really strong in a health problem and really strong in the in the area of science or engineering, where there needs to be a fundamental breakthrough. But I don't think that's very likely. So we need to have a team that covers all the major areas of expertise for the project,
Dana Wolff-Hughes: and as a follow up to that is collaborative research submission from two institutions favored versus one.
Tom Martin: I think that's up to the institutions to decide It's whatever the team wants to, that we
Tom Martin: we've whatever they is easiest for them.
Dana Wolff-Hughes: So there is another question. Sylvia, I see, was is typing, but the question is about Is it common
Dana Wolff-Hughes: for and I to to find different Pds. And now it's Oh, it's going!
Dana Wolff-Hughes: I
Dana Wolff-Hughes: um!
Sylvia Spengler: It was whether you could put in funding levels of three to four months for people for multiple people. And I said,
Sylvia Spengler: you have to realize that the one point, two million is the total award, direct, and indirect, and I deeply hope that your salary is more than four months a year for four years. At one point, two million direct and indirect.
Sylvia Spengler: The problem is is that directs tend to begin at fifty percent,
Sylvia Spengler: which means you don't see all one point two million in your laboratory, or for you to dispense. So it really is not as much as it sounds like,
Sylvia Spengler: and especially not if you think you're If you have four months of salary in it.
Dana Wolff-Hughes: There's a
Goli Yamini: go ahead. We're we're talking about the funding rate question I would refer everybody to, and as if by the numbers we don't have the share by individual program policy they're published on Msf:
Tom Martin: Um. And then that question about the enforcing lower overhead rate it's, whatever the indirect rate is for your institution.
Dana Wolff-Hughes: The only thing i'll say is this: Sometimes the indirects of what negotiated is a little bit different. The budgets don't necessarily
Dana Wolff-Hughes: come out the same as what you apply to nsf with is when you come over to Nih and I'll just sort of say that we you still have to stay within the one point two million, and we work with investigators to move the numbers around a little bit to make sure everything works within what has been negotiated.
Georgia-Ann Klutke: I would add to that it's Nsf's policy to not support more than two months. P. I. To not provide more than two months. P. I support over all Nsf. Projects, except in special cases. For instance, if there is major teaching requirements. We, we, we often make exceptions to that, but there is that requirement as well.
Dana Wolff-Hughes: He is also a sheer dogs,
Dana Wolff-Hughes: Isaac and resubmitting, so can you revise and recent at the same application that was rejected last year, which I wouldn't call it rejected, I would just say it's unfunded.
David Zahavi: Very good decision. Yes,
Goli Yamini: yes, yes, definitely. Because we um.
Goli Yamini: There are some that are really
Goli Yamini: great, and you know there's a lot that goes into sort of the decision making process. So the short answer is, yes, uh! But what I want to clarify, and I hope that Dana and David can jump in as well Is there's a difference between resubmitting to Nsf. And Nih. Some of the continuity that you see at Mih is not the same at Msf.
Goli Yamini: We see it at the program. Directors kind of observe the continuity, and we see the proposal of If it's coming, and then things are changed and comments are addressed.
Goli Yamini: But the panel is not going to be the same panel that saw the the the proposal the first time, and the viewers don't have the same continuity. Sylvia, please go ahead.
Sylvia Spengler: Nsf: Nsf. Requires that A.
Sylvia Spengler: Suppose a proposal that is, quote resubmitted to the same program unquote needs to be substantially revised.
Sylvia Spengler: So so, and we're starting to run the software that picks that up. And
Goli Yamini: thank you, Mark, if I can add to that um.
Tom Martin: You know the rating scale that we use for smart health is highly competitive, competitive, low, competitive, not competitive, and not discussed in the panel.
Tom Martin: So the difference between low competitive and non-competitive is low, Competitive is This is appropriate for smart health. There's something good here, but it's not just not You didn't write it up very well,
Tom Martin: not competitive. Is. There's some fundamental problem here, that, or it doesn't fit with the program at all. So if you got a not competitive, if you got an Inc.
Tom Martin: You probably want to think really heavily about revising it. So that's a that's a major major difference, whereas in Lc. Means you. You're you're within scope. There's something significant that needs to be addressed. But you can fix this in. C is probably you probably can't,
Georgia-Ann Klutke: so I want to add two that it's really helpful to reach out to the cognizant program. Officer. This addresses another question that came in
Georgia-Ann Klutke: afterwards: If you're planning on resubmitting um, find out, have a conversation. Find out exactly what that program officer makes has, because they can often discuss the reviews with you on a much more specific basis.
Georgia-Ann Klutke: And, like I like to say, that's one of the reasons we're here is to help improve your proposals.
Sylvia Spengler: Somebody is asking, Can I repeat myself?
Sylvia Spengler: Can I repeat myself on substantial, substantially different
Sylvia Spengler: Nsf. Does not want the State to see the same proposal again. The
Sylvia Spengler: it requires that there it is not like a resubmission for and nih where you say what changes you have made. Although some program officers like that, it is that it needs to be substantially different.
Sylvia Spengler: Now you can judge what happens in a year's time in most sciences,
Sylvia Spengler: and so that wouldn't so could drive your changes. But it cannot be the same proposal. And you say, Well, it did really well last time. It was just the luck of the draw that he didn't get funded. It cannot be the same proposal,
Tom Martin: and and I can't find it at the moment i'm i'm looking heavily. But this this should be addressed in the Grant proposal, Guy. So if you look in the in the Apache, there should be information there about the substantial recent revision.
Georgia-Ann Klutke: It is there, and it actually says it needs to be substantially revised, based on comments from the previous review.
Sylvia Spengler: But you don't have to answer. We we did x in place of y or z,
Sylvia Spengler: and and these solicitations change so it's not like a core solicitation that doesn't change,
Sylvia Spengler: although we hope we have one for the next two years beyond this one.
Georgia-Ann Klutke: So there's a question about a collaborative research submission from two institutions.
Georgia-Ann Klutke: I just wanted to address that a little bit, because you can. Yes, we we love collaborative from from multiple institutions.
Georgia-Ann Klutke: There are two ways to do that they can be sent as collaborative proposals, or they from separate institutions, or they can be sent as a collaborative proposal from a single institution.
Georgia-Ann Klutke: I personally favor collaboratives from a signal institution, just because we that gives us more um certainty that that everybody's going to work together. We have one point of contact. Who's in charge of making sure that the the project really goes off as as proposed. But
Georgia-Ann Klutke: the idea of the collaboration plan is to try to address that if it comes from two institutions, so be sure that you convince the reviewers that you truly are collaborating that there's not a zipper in the middle of the proposal, and one goes to one
Georgia-Ann Klutke: institution, another to another institution. That's why this particular solicitation has a required collaboration plan.
David Zahavi: There's a question on improving commercial health sensors from a basic point of view, using machine learning. Would that be considered something adequate for this call?
David Zahavi: Again, I think we've tried to stress during this webinar that really we're looking for applications that would be advancing fundamental science in two different areas. So that would. Oh, did the question know? Okay, it.
David Zahavi: Uh that that might uh be appropriate as as long as you're advancing uh those two different areas.
Dana Wolff-Hughes: The last question on there. Um
Dana Wolff-Hughes: that we have, and it. I think we'll be ready to wrap up for the days. Well, I scores be evaluated, based off the and Nih Review criteria, which are significance, investigator, innovation, approach and environment.
Dana Wolff-Hughes: There's a friends that like Go ahead.
You want to take that day, or do you want me to take it?
Dana Wolff-Hughes: Uh, I mean Correct me if i'm wrong, but I believe that is the case. Right? Uh the I score will still be done with with our criteria,
Tom Martin: and it might help to add, You know we we had a slide on it. But what happens is at the review panel. We have the discussion from the Um. Ah! Where each reviewer talks about the proposal, and then we give it a separating, and then we hand it off to the Nih Sro
Tom Martin: to get the round of nih scores, so they get. They get both the Nsf. Rating in the summary of the panel discussion, as well as the Nih stores essentially at the same time.
David Zahavi: But again, do not try to tail your tailor your application to any nih criteria to think about the the Nsf. Evaluation criteria. First and foremost, i'll just reiterate them.
Goli Yamini: Thanks. I think I was gonna say some of like the uh. I see that, you know uh somebody. You know it. It It looks like we're coming to a close with few additional questions. And I that is a great one to wrap up to be like, Yes, please uh address the nsf
Goli Yamini: right. It's, an it's not an age.
Goli Yamini: Oh,
Goli Yamini: well, we do have a couple of questions that just came in, so let's if if anybody else has any other questions, please? Uh submit it now. So we can answer before we before we close up
Goli Yamini: any limit on equipment costs. If we build a medical imaging, Tom, is. Are there any limits?
Tom Martin: Well, the the per year limit is three hundred K. So it's one point, two million, total, three hundred K. And any you know maximum in any one year. So
Tom Martin: if you, your equipment costs were to be more than three hundred K. In one year, then that would be a limit.
Goli Yamini: Um! What about the proposal being
Goli Yamini: submitted and collaborative versus not collaborative?
Goli Yamini: It may be so.
Goli Yamini: It's a
Sylvia Spengler: I don't think.
Sylvia Spengler: I think, if you are clear about
Sylvia Spengler: the the problem with a collaborative with lots and lots of sub awards, is that you can be nibbled to deaf by ducks with the overhead on the original twenty, five K. For each sub award.
Sylvia Spengler: That's the trouble with the one central one.
Sylvia Spengler: The multi multiple institutions, multiple uh
Sylvia Spengler: parts of a collaboration
Sylvia Spengler: is one making sure you've got keep track of everything, but also
Sylvia Spengler: clearly Um,
Sylvia Spengler: relying on the collaboration plan to ensure that there's a central focus for the project.
Dana Wolff-Hughes: So there's a question here about the number of years of the proposal and the the budget, and so
Dana Wolff-Hughes: these are, on average, three hundredk per year upward to four years, which would be one point two.
Dana Wolff-Hughes: I have not seen anything that's been two years or less. The lowest I've seen is three years, and in that case the budget has been a little bit higher in the first two years, and totally up to one point two.
Dana Wolff-Hughes: But, Golly, Tom,
Sylvia Spengler: I don't know if there's any restrictions on that, and I don't think the three hundred K. Is A. Suggested the one point two million is solid
Dana Wolff-Hughes: you,
Sylvia Spengler: but if it's, the number of years can be less so so sometimes. Um. For other programs I've funded three.
Goli Yamini: The only other issue that I can think of. Is it being competitive enough, you know, like it has to deal with the scope of what's happening. So if the project you're proposing, is
Goli Yamini: it doesn't really require even half the budget here, and it's like a short-term project. Maybe this model is not the best to apply for me. There's other ones that can fit the smaller size of projects. So it may not be competitive in in this type of review, so it just
Goli Yamini: it's a matter of fitness. Also
Goli Yamini: there's a question on how it's broken down, and I think, um Sylvia is answering that live which I think the answer is, yes, if it has to be like two hundred or four hundred. You first your second year.
Tom Martin: So there's a question about the the specific areas and the themes. So those themes are not exhausted lists. Those are just an emergent list based upon things that we've seen over the last several years.
Tom Martin: It's really are you making contributions across the Nsf. To records that that participate. So you could actually, for instance, you can have two areas of of computer science that you make
Tom Martin: contributions in. So, for instance, you could make advances in human-centered computing and Ai, and that would be considered two distinct areas or two areas of engineering
Goli Yamini: um back. The scripts
Tom Martin: about human subjects. Most, if not all of the projects do have humans. So I can't actually think of a project that didn't have human subjects. So given the evaluation that's expected, and you're going after your health problem. You're probably going to need Irv approval,
Tom Martin: and the number of subjects is really going to depend upon your project.
Dana Wolff-Hughes: I'll also say twenty is not a massive size, because it seems like that's sort of what the
Dana Wolff-Hughes: the questions getting at, and when we talk about like large trial. We're talking about like large randomized clinical control trials. We're talking like in the hundreds like fifty, thirty-five, one hundred. Then you start getting outside of
Dana Wolff-Hughes: an environmental project.
Tom Martin: So there's a question about having a physician, you know. As we said, you don't have to have a physician on your team. You have to have somebody you have to cover up. Um. You have to have a research expertise that covers all the major areas of your proposal
Tom Martin: it doesn't necessarily have to be a physician to cover the medical aspect. It might be a different type of of medical research, expertise, or public health.
Goli Yamini: Well as far as international collaborators. I know Sylvia is typing, but um international collaborators are allowed. But um the but nsf doesn't like to give direct funds to international institutes. So if it's, if you're going to have that you should have a great justification,
Goli Yamini: the rule of thumb is that it should be more than twenty. But again, you should really justify if you want to have an international collaborator. Um, do you guys want to reiterate the limits for the
Goli Yamini: Pi copier salary per year. We just Georgia. I just mentioned that, for I I said, it's two months.
Tom Martin: Yeah. So like you said, it's just two months. The expectation is then more than two months, except for a special circumstances,
Tom Martin: and that's two months per year,
Tom Martin: and we got a couple of questions about need and I, or the approval before the submission or on the board. So you don't have to either have I or the approval when you submit. Um, but you will have to have documentation, either I or the approval or a determination there before the award is made.
Goli Yamini: Survey data collections. I I I assume they are Okay, I've never
Goli Yamini: seen anything that says otherwise.
They are okay to use.
Goli Yamini: All right, I think
Goli Yamini: I don't see any new questions. Um. Does anybody in the on the panel want to make any other comments or remarks.
Tom Martin: Now I think we're going
Goli Yamini: all right. Um,
Goli Yamini: We don't have any other questions, and please do submit them. If you're there and shy, we still have a few minutes. So
Goli Yamini: the budget question again. The limit is one point two, but you can't span or the campus, So can you help me clarify this? Explain to everybody by the budget.
Tom Martin: So the the maximum is one point two, and my my understanding is the the maximum per year is three hundred K. Um. So
Goli Yamini: that's what I thought, and that's what we have in the slides and sort of like. That's what we've seen
Goli Yamini: that I just managed to mention.
Dana Wolff-Hughes: So here I can clarify the Max total cost of directs and indirects is one point, two million for up to four years. If you are going below
Dana Wolff-Hughes: four years, say three years, then you can anticipate to re-allocate and distribute your budget accordingly. To still be within one point, two million. So the one point, two million does not change, based off the number of years. If you're going for four years, so on average, you should be around three hundred. K. We would not expect,
Dana Wolff-Hughes: you know, something like five K. In the first year, and then the rest of the year's being substantially lower. So four years an average plus or minus around three hundred. K. Anything less than that you redistribute to be within one point, two million in total cost.
Goli Yamini: Thanks for the pair of you
Goli Yamini: that Um. More questions about the recording. If you guys go to our program page, this is this presentation is actually a repeat of the one we did on September twenty fifth. So the recordings for that is already up. It's the same slides. Um! So you can already access those. This particular recording should be up in a few days.
Dana Wolff-Hughes: The answer is, you need to stay within one point, two million in total costs. But if you come in at five hundred K. For one here, I can tell you. You most likely will not get funded, but it is not a hard and fast rule, so on average, three hundred K. Per year for four years. But it is
Dana Wolff-Hughes: There's Wiggle room there you can. The hard is, you cannot go over one point, two million.
Goli Yamini: One question that didn't come up today. Being on, I don't know if anybody still left in the participants may have. This question or not was about the new Api status.
Goli Yamini: That question usually comes up, and you,
Goli Yamini: I didn't see it come up today. But Do you want to explain a little bit about the difference between sort of how that works for any Api's that want to keep that status for an age.
Dana Wolff-Hughes: So um first Nsf doesn't have an early stage investigator status. So that's that's number one and number two um at mih. The definition is to be within ten years of your terminal degree, and not have substantial, and I need funding such as an ro one
Dana Wolff-Hughes: if you come over to Nih, so you apply through smart health,
Dana Wolff-Hughes: and your application is selected to move forward to Nih, and you are classified as an early stage investigator. You will be treated as such in the application,
Dana Wolff-Hughes: will sort of fall within the Esi realm of pay lines. That is, of course, unless you're on an Mpi proposal in which your other investigators are established and Don't qualify. But in general, if this is an Esi proposal, the pay line will apply to the grant that comes over to nih, and then you will not have your esi status anymore, because these applications are awarded as ro one.
Goli Yamini: All right. Well, um, I think that's pretty much um
Goli Yamini: most of the questions. I really got a few lesson at once. Um,
Goli Yamini: it's
Dana Wolff-Hughes: that. And there I think that there are policies about submitting the same scientific contact to multiple Federal agencies.
Goli Yamini: Yes,
Sylvia Spengler: usually Nsf Doesn't permit that.
Goli Yamini: So even content. What content wise if the project has the same content here, we don't really
Goli Yamini: it like like Sylvia and Dan just said it's not.
Goli Yamini: Can it be considered
Goli Yamini: so for any more specific questions? Um, Some Some questions get a little bit into the weeds of budget or topics and stuff like that. I encourage
Goli Yamini: you guys to reach out to us to use our email and and send us um things that are more specific uh being related to topic or sort of the details of your your individual project. That will be a better place to answer them.
Goli Yamini: But if it's okay with everyone here, I I wanted to sort of wrap things up
Goli Yamini: um, and you know, ask everyone for any more questions to please email us. Um, and thank thank my and Nsf. And and nih colleagues for being here today, and I, we hope that it was an informative webinar for you guys. And um, I hope to see you in panel, either as a reviewer again email me. I've already received a few emails. Thank you for those who reached out Ah, or the Ah, our alias! And or you know
Goli Yamini: that's the luck to you guys with with
Goli Yamini: joining the sage community if you're not already part of it.
Goli Yamini: Uh, Dana, David, Tom, did you guys want to say anything before we leave? I'm, Sylvia?
Tom Martin: Just thanks everybody for uh attending today and and asking such good questions.
David Zahavi: Thank you. Everyone for attending
Dana Wolff-Hughes: It's right.